Photography direct onto ceramic surface -- seeking wisdom

[monsiekel]

Hello all,

I have a puzzle and I am curious what this knowledgeable community might have to say about it. I am hoping to combine my photography and ceramics work in the following way: I would like to coat a bisqued (that is, fired once but unglazed) ceramic surface with something photosensitive and then register an image directly into that surface. It is important (at least to keep the puzzle interesting) that there be no intermediary negatives (no contact printing)--I want the ceramic itself to be the substrate on which the image, projected through a large lens, is recorded. The ceramic would then be fired. This is also e

So here is the puzzle. Ignoring the construction of such a camera, what sort of photosensitive chemicals can I use that can both survive a firing, preserving the image to be clear glazed over later, and are also fast enough that the exposure can be less than, say, 3-4 hours. The two processes that I've seen adapted to ceramic before are gum bichromate and cyanotype--both of which are contact speed as far as I know. I had thought about using something like Liquid Light, but I worry the silver wouldn't survive the firing or else would run and blur or flake as the gelatin binder melts. The ideal process would deposit a pigment directly on the surface to avoid this.

My best idea was to use some kind of hypersensitive cyanotype, since that would at least deposit iron directly on the surface, which I know will survive the firing though it might be faint. Another idea I had was somehow using very sensitive gum process to leave a negative in unpigmented gum and then printing with pigmented linseed oil in the positive. I bet there is a better answer out there. Something fast enough, leaves pigment or iron or something directly on the surface, and can survive firing to a decently high temperature. Anyone of you wise alchemists have any clues for me? Anything would help!

 

[koraks]

very sensitive gum process to leave a negative in unpigmented gum and then printing with pigmented linseed oil in the positive.

Gum, like gelatin, will burn/flake off at typical ceramic firing temperatures.
However, you could try something like this: https://printmakersfriend.com/
It's much faster than gum. You can buy a pigmented version or a clear base and add your own pigments of choice. It's a negative-working process, so an image projected by a lens will appear in the negative. You could of course obtain a positive by first applying an inert black layer of pigment in a suitable binder, and then coat the light sensitive emulsion that's mixed with a white pigment (e.g. titanium oxide).
I don't know how well the polymer will withstand the firing temperature. Maybe you can use a pigment that somehow reacts with/embeds itself into the ceramic surface while the binder/carrier is sacrificed. You'll have to experiment a bit.

Keep in mind that processes like cyanotype, gum bichromate and printmaker's friend are UV-sensitive, so the projected image must be particularly rich in UV. This means that a sunlight image projected through a lens that doesn't block UV too badly will work, but something projected from an ordinary white or colored LED light source won't register.

In case your ceramic has a three-dimensional shape (cup, vase, etc.) there may/will be a challenge getting the image sufficiently in focus - or rather, you'll have to accept that large parts of the image will not be in focus and they'll of course be geometrically warped. But I assume you've accounted for this in your concept. If not, you're probably stuck with some kind of offset printing process where you assemble the image on a flexible/compressible carrier and then contact print/transfer it to the workpiece.

Sounds like a fun project; feel free to ask/explore lots more and I hope you'll share some results when the time comes!
And welcome to Photrio, it's nice to have you on board.

 

[loccdor]

You sometimes see cemeteries with photographs of people transferred to very hard surfaces meant to last a long time. I wonder if someone involved in that work could help you. Welcome to Photrio

 

[BrianShaw]

Ceramics and photography – a beginning – AlternativePhotography.com

www.alternativephotography.com

Welcome to Photrio.

Making Process - Foto Ceramica

To do this kind of process without a negative could insist on a very static subject as the exposure time could be rather long.

Ceramic Dictionary - by Susan Mussi: PHOTO CERAMIC

Photo Ceramic is the name used to refers to the process of applying photos onto ceramics. The first tests were carried out in France by Lafon…

ceramicdictionary.com

Note the discussion about ink-jet printing in this source. Probably how it’s done so quickly and inexpensive today.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hello all,

I have a puzzle and I am curious what this knowledgeable community might have to say about it. I am hoping to combine my photography and ceramics work in the following way: I would like to coat a bisqued (that is, fired once but unglazed) ceramic surface with something photosensitive and then register an image directly into that surface. It is important (at least to keep the puzzle interesting) that there be no intermediary negatives (no contact printing)--I want the ceramic itself to be the substrate on which the image, projected through a large lens, is recorded. The ceramic would then be fired. This is also e

So here is the puzzle. Ignoring the construction of such a camera, what sort of photosensitive chemicals can I use that can both survive a firing, preserving the image to be clear glazed over later, and are also fast enough that the exposure can be less than, say, 3-4 hours. The two processes that I've seen adapted to ceramic before are gum bichromate and cyanotype--both of which are contact speed as far as I know. I had thought about using something like Liquid Light, but I worry the silver wouldn't survive the firing or else would run and blur or flake as the gelatin binder melts. The ideal process would deposit a pigment directly on the surface to avoid this.

My best idea was to use some kind of hypersensitive cyanotype, since that would at least deposit iron directly on the surface, which I know will survive the firing though it might be faint. Another idea I had was somehow using very sensitive gum process to leave a negative in unpigmented gum and then printing with pigmented linseed oil in the positive. I bet there is a better answer out there. Something fast enough, leaves pigment or iron or something directly on the surface, and can survive firing to a decently high temperature. Anyone of you wise alchemists have any clues for me? Anything would help!

Welcome to Photrio! and thank you of starting a thread on an interesting subject.

 

[MTGseattle]

What was the product that students used to use so that they could get light sensitivity onto almost anything? was it "liquid light?"

Liquid Light 16oz

Liquid Light© is a b&w photographic emulsion for printing on wood, glass, ceramics, plastics, china, fabric, metal, rock, paper, artist’s canvas, walls, any surface. Now with faster speed for higher contrast. Printing with Liquid Light is the same as with enlargement paper. Under

www.rockaloid.com

If I'm understanding the Rockland product, if the OP placed a ceramic "plate" in a camera, they would get a negative image correct? I didn't look up any msds info, I have no idea if liquid light would hold up to the heat of a firing or not.

This is an interesting concept. I wish you success.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Industrial lasers have revolutionized the whole concept, whether in relation to acid resists or direct etching/ filling. And acid resist illustration on hard surfaces using natural gums goes back at least 75,000 years! - so who knows how many options there potentially are in between. Have fun!

 

[fgorga]

I do not think that what you are seeking is possible for two reasons.

#1 -- most of the possible processes involve UV light.

This limits you to contact printing in practical terms. Of course if cost is no object you might be able to rig a high powered, computer modulated UV laser system that could provide enough energy at the right wavelength.

#2 -- in a word "oxidation".

Pretty much anything you expose to kiln temperatures in oxygen (air) is going to get oxidized. Remember that most photographic processes involve the photo-reduction of a metal to form an image. Placing that image in a kiln will re-oxidize the metal destroying the image. This precludes any process in which the image is formed from metallic silver, or pretty much any other metal as well.

Cyanotype won't stand firing either. Prussian blue decomposes at temperatures below 400 deg. C.

Furthermore any organic binder present will be oxidized all the way to carbon dioxide (i.e. it will burn up!).

I think that the closest you can get is the process described in the link to Foto Ceramica cited in post #4 above. The pigments used in this variant of the usual gum-bichromate process are metal oxides that are know stable under firing conditions and the fact that the organic gum matrix is destroyed in the kiln seems to be irrelevant as the pigments apparently fuse with the ceramic substrate upon firing (much as a glaze does) without significant migration.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you want to see state of the art, check out the big ceramic photographs Magnolia Editions produced for Chuck Close and the NYC subway installations - BIG money too! I don't think they're into that service anymore, but probably still hold patents on it. I haven't talked to them since I retired; but I do know they've scaled the operation way back into more a teaching venue instead.

 

[monsiekel]

Ceramics and photography – a beginning – AlternativePhotography.com

www.alternativephotography.com

Welcome to Photrio.

Making Process - Foto Ceramica

To do this kind of process without a negative could insist on a very static subject as the exposure time could be rather long.

Ceramic Dictionary - by Susan Mussi: PHOTO CERAMIC

Photo Ceramic is the name used to refers to the process of applying photos onto ceramics. The first tests were carried out in France by Lafon…

ceramicdictionary.com

Note the discussion about ink-jet printing in this source. Probably how it’s done so quickly and inexpensive today.

Thanks for pointing me to this Foto Ceramica page. This is the most common way I've seen actual "printing" (as opposed to transfers) done on ceramic. Gum bichromate process using either mason stains or simple ceramic pigments like iron or cobalt oxide. I also found this very informative thesis on the subject here. : https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark..._d/1977-08-glover-photography-on-ceramics.pdf.

Gum bichromate as far as I've seen is really slow and so is used for contact printing. It's also sensitive to UV light. (Cyanotype has the same two problems.) As I see it there are two things that would have to happen to adapt such a process to record an image projected from a lens.

First, the chemical makeup would be modified to make it more sensitive. For gum bichromate, I imagine adding more dichromate salts and maybe an acid would make things faster? Not sure. Curious if anyone knows a way to make gum bichromate much faster. The suggestion of printmakers friend above seems to have done it. Maybe I'll ask them. For cyanotype, there are faster versions (like new cyanotype and cyanotype rex), but still nothing fast enough to record the small amount of light inside a normal camera.

The second change would then be to the camera design to ensure that a lot of light gets into the camera. (Likewise, shoot on a very sunny day.) I was thinking about using a fairly large lens. This relates to another technical question I had. Suppose the image is projected onto a spherical surface (say, a bowl). Could this be contrived to correct for spherical aberration from a spherical lens and thus result in an imagine in focus even across a non-flat surface? Something I was wondering about.

 

[monsiekel]

I do not think that what you are seeking is possible for two reasons.

#1 -- most of the possible processes involve UV light.

This limits you to contact printing in practical terms. Of course if cost is no object you might be able to rig a high powered, computer modulated UV laser system that could provide enough energy at the right wavelength.

#2 -- in a word "oxidation".

Pretty much anything you expose to kiln temperatures in oxygen (air) is going to get oxidized. Remember that most photographic processes involve the photo-reduction of a metal to form an image. Placing that image in a kiln will re-oxidize the metal destroying the image. This precludes any process in which the image is formed from metallic silver, or pretty much any other metal as well.

Cyanotype won't stand firing either. Prussian blue decomposes at temperatures below 400 deg. C.

Furthermore any organic binder present will be oxidized all the way to carbon dioxide (i.e. it will burn up!).

I think that the closest you can get is the process described in the link to Foto Ceramica cited in post #4 above. The pigments used in this variant of the usual gum-bichromate process are metal oxides that are know stable under firing conditions and the fact that the organic gum matrix is destroyed in the kiln seems to be irrelevant as the pigments apparently fuse with the ceramic substrate upon firing (much as a glaze does) without significant migration.

I've seen in-camera cyanotypes before--they are very slow and miss a lot of the spectrum of light obviously, but they can capture an image. See for example these or this.

As to the oxidation--that's definitely the problem. Gum bichromate would avoid this because it would allow me to deposit a pigment of my choice and thus something that can survive the kiln. Silver from liquid light or something similar would be harder--though I did find this post, where a liquid light photo was taken up to 840 C without being completely destroyed. That's lower than most ceramic is practically fired at--but not much lower.

Metal oxides are commonly used as colorants in ceramics ... I wonder why oxidation would necessarily destroy the image, so long as the metal is only present on the surface where the image is (after development). Iron oxides are especially common--that's why I thought of cyanotype as a possibility. I think the prussian blue does oxidize and turn brown, but the image itself survives. It turns a toasty brown color. See some examples of fired cyanotype here and here. In the second she mentions she fired to 1200 C without losing the image.

That's why I thought cyanotype might be my best bet, if I could make it fast enough. The danger is that prussian blue to produce poisonous gases as it breaks down -- but if well ventilated I bet that would be okay as well.

 

[koraks]

I imagine adding more dichromate salts and maybe an acid would make things faster?

Only to an extent. Acid won't help and/or would be counterproductive (fog). There's only so much dichromate you can use while keeping the emulsion suitable for printing. Contrast is affected, too, and you'll run into trouble controlling this when directly exposing a real scene as well.

The suggestion of printmakers friend above seems to have done it.

It's different chemistry; both the colloid and the sensitizer. Printmaker's friend is Calvin Grier's baby; you could ask him, but he's probably not going to tell much about it (trade secret). There's a related innovation called 'Zerochrome SbQ": https://zerochrome.org/ This one is open source and developed by Kees Brandenburg & Simone Simoncini. Ask the latter as he's the one who has done the lion's share of the chemical research AFAIK.

I was thinking about using a fairly large lens.

Very, very large. Very.

Suppose the image is projected onto a spherical surface (say, a bowl). Could this be contrived to correct for spherical aberration from a spherical lens and thus result in an imagine in focus even across a non-flat surface?

Not really. Moreover, there's an opposing requirement here of a lens with a very large aperture (to let in sufficient light) and creating a projection with sufficient depth of field to allow for even a slight shape to your object (forget about something round). There's a hard limit posed by physics/optics at work.
Also consider that the projected image won't magically wrap itself around the object. Take a projector (DLP, slide) and project an image onto a bowl. You'll see what I mean.

The danger is that prussian blue to produce poisonous gases as it breaks down

If you fire it in an oven at 1000C or so, I don't think any cyanide will survive. It'll break down. But really, I don't think it forms in the first place.

 

[nmp]

A couple (or more) of points to add -

There are ways to get fast cyanotype by deconstructing the sensitizer, i.e. coating the ferric ammonium citrate first and exposing and then developing with potassium ferricyanide. Many instances out there from Cyanotype Rex and others more recent.

As far as silver, how about toning it with gold, Pt, or Pd - wouldn't it survive the firing? That would allow the use of something like Liquid Light with the conventional projector and negative.

If worried about decomposing the cyanotpye in the furnace, why not simply bleach it first with an alkali like Na2CO3 to make a Fe(OH)3 image, which on firing will covert to hydrated ferric oxide, which is the common red pigment used in ceramics.

On an another thought, why on bypass the cyanotpye all together and make a image of ferrous oxalate from ferric oxalate, the former is insoluble so a water wash will make the image. Then bleach it like above to obtain Fe(OH)3 image and then fire away. Don't have to involve ferricyanide at all. Ferricyanide is a strong UV absorber so it eats up a lot of the UV light, slowing down the sensitizer.

:Niranjan

 

[monsiekel]

Hi Niranjan -- thanks for these interesting suggestions. Just the kind of stuff I'm looking for.

As far as silver, how about toning it with gold, Pt, or Pd - wouldn't it survive the firing? That would allow the use of something like Liquid Light with the conventional projector and negative.

This would indeed be useful for what I want, since I could first use the all the benefits of the silver-based emulsion to take the picture but then replace the silver with a metal that will survive the firing better. (If I understand correctly.) I haven't used those metals on ceramic before, but I agree it would likely be workable. Perhaps something similar to the older luster effects could be achieved if the metal oxidizes and then goes into reduction. Could be a nice effect. I wonder about toning with cobalt, which gives a nice family of ceramic pigments ... Is the toning process for liquid light the same as toning normal photographic paper?

If worried about decomposing the cyanotpye in the furnace, why not simply bleach it first with an alkali like Na2CO3 to make a Fe(OH)3 image, which on firing will covert to hydrated ferric oxide, which is the common red pigment used in ceramics.

This is a good idea too.

make an image of ferrous oxalate from ferric oxalate,

Curious about this. I'm not familiar with this process. If I understand correctly, you mean I would coat the ceramic with a sensitizer of ferric oxalate, expose the photo, and "develop" with water, bleach in alkali to prepare for firing, and then fire. That sounds too simple and easy to be true ...

 

[koraks]

Is the toning process for liquid light the same as toning normal photographic paper?

Chemically speaking, yes. But given the cost of the materials, it seems counterproductive to use a large/deep tray of toning liquid and dip the workpiece in it. I'd suggest mixing a more concentrated toner instead, and apply it with a brush to the image.

 

[monsiekel]

Chemically speaking, yes. But given the cost of the materials, it seems counterproductive to use a large/deep tray of toning liquid and dip the workpiece in it. I'd suggest mixing a more concentrated toner instead, and apply it with a brush to the image.

Makes sense—I'm planning on having the image on the inside of a plate or bowl with a rim, so I think I could also sort of pour some of the solution in at a normal concentration, swirl it around, and pour it back out. Similar to how a dip glaze is applied to the inside of any ceramic vessel. The ceramic vessel could sort of be its own tray. That was my first idea, but maybe that would also be overkill. Brush would work too.

To reply to your earlier comment, I know the curvature of the ceramic base would cause distortions. I was just wondering if there might be some kind of lens for which this wouldn't be as much of a problem ... since I've seen curved film planes before.

 

[koraks]

swirl it around, and pour it back out

As long as the ceramic is non-absorbent, this should work. Otherwise you might lose a lot as the bisque soaks up the toner. This may also discolor the ceramic. The gelatin of the liquid light etc. will form a barrier especially if you harden it; these emulsions generally come with a separate hardener you need to add.

Given that your object is a bowl or dish, I now understand your question about curvature a little better. It's theoretically possible to have a curved projection plane, but you'll find most lenses are corrected to give a more or less flat field. You might be able to figure something out in principle; you could e.g. take separate lens groups or even elements instead of a complete camera lens. Combined with the liquid light you might be able to get somewhere. I'd forget about any UV process with the possible exception of Printmaker's Friend because they're all really slow, even if you try to speed them up.

 

[nmp]

Curious about this. I'm not familiar with this process. If I understand correctly, you mean I would coat the ceramic with a sensitizer of ferric oxalate, expose the photo, and "develop" with water, bleach in alkali to prepare for firing, and then fire. That sounds too simple and easy to be true ...

I misspoke above - it is the ferrous oxalate that is insoluble (which I have corrected.) On exposure, ferric oxalate converts to ferrous oxalate which is an yellow insoluble compound. It is this insolubility that is responsible, in processes that involve ferric oxalate as a sensitizer (Pt-Pd, kallitype etc,) for requiring a developer such as sodium acetate, potassium oxalate etc which are solvents for ferrous oxalate. So if one uses plain water, it will dissolve all unconverted ferric oxalate leaving ferrous oxalate on the substrate - forming a yellow image. I have done some basic experiments with this with some other end process in mind, but not with a full image, so I don't know what kind of tonal range the process will give. For example, the bleached cyanotype has a very low Dmax so the image is quite dull. So if a strong Dmax is important, this might not work for you.

:Niranjan.

 

[nmp]

I have done some basic experiments with this with some other end process in mind...

:Niranjan.

That idea might also be useful here. What I was trying to do was make a copper-based image. This was before the hypo-cuprotype came along. What I envisioned was first make an image with ferrous oxalate. When this is treated with copper sulfate, light blue copper oxalate image is formed by simple double-displacement. This can be converted to copper hydroxide image which is another shade of blue by treating with an alkali like NaOH. Copper hydroxide is unstable which can result in black CuO on oxidation. It is the last step I was not able to reproduce consistently (may be some day I will revive this project.) However, I would think this conversion should happen readily in the furnace with an oxidative environment, giving a black CuO image.

Just another potential pathway to explore if so inclined, with emphasis on potential.

:Niranjan.

 

[Don_ih]

I'd use screenprinting emulsion and contact print it, wash off the unexposed emulsion and smear on my pigment. That would sink into the ceramic but not where the exposed emulsion is - which would burn off in the kiln.

It might be possible to do the same with Liquid Light. Where the negative image forms, after fixing and rinsing, might block enough of the ceramic to smear the pigment on, leaving a positive image after the firing. Maybe. You'd want good density in your developed image.

 

[monsiekel]

Thanks everyone for these exciting suggestions. I'm going to try a few this summer and will report back. I really like the idea of using a silver gelatin emulsion like Liquid Light (just for faster exposure) and then toning to replace the silver with something with more reliable behavior in the kiln. Copper could work, as could iron. Perhaps I could essentially blue tone the image with the cyanotype chemicals that I already have (potassium ferrocyanide and FAC) and then bleach the resulting blue with an alkali as Niranjan suggested above to get my iron oxide image after firing. Maybe that's a convoluted way to get there ... but if it works I'd be happy with that. What I worry about here is melting away the gelatin while preserving the image. I have seen

The ferrous oxalate to copper process is interesting too. I could easily arrange for a highly oxidative environment in the firing and maybe would get an even black. I also know that when fired under reduction conditions copper can give a beautiful red as it converts to cuprous oxide ... maybe that could be achieved as well. I will report back hopefully soon

 

[NedL]

Researching something like pyrofoto might be useful.

 

[koraks]

Copper could work, as could iron.

Both are easy & cheap in terms of toners. Definitely worth a shot!

Researching something like pyrofoto might be useful.

Looks more user-friendly than e.g. gum bichromate, but it's a UV-sensitive material that requires a contact-printing approach.